Why I left Atheism?

**Pontios** · 08-31-2013, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Ethos

This in no way shows any existence of another realm, or of a god. Just because you do not understand something or can't explain it does not mean that its existence should be contributed to a god.

This leads me to believe that you are not a real atheist; a real atheist would never jump to conclusions like this, they would wait until there is ample evidence to make a decision. A lack of understanding for something is not evidence! This could be anything, maybe something scientists have not been able to explain, or it could be god.

My point is that you don't have enough understanding this situation to come to any rational conclusion! I will be the first to say I do not know what this is; I do not know if it is supernatural or not and I wont pretend to. That is what a real atheist would do, they believe only what they have evidence for. If there was evidence to support the supernatural, or a god, and atheist would be the first to admit it! ONLY BELIEVE WHAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT! DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS!

That's what I see in most people who say they are Atheists. They all have conclusions rather than a stable and common belief amongst them...

From what I see, some people just don't understand what Atheist actually means. They think just because they don't know if there is a God or not, they immediately are Atheists rather than admitting they are not sure.

**SilverKnight** · 08-31-2013, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by Ethos

This in no way shows any existence of another realm, or of a god. Just because you do not understand something or can't explain it does not mean that its existence should be contributed to a god.

This leads me to believe that you are not a real atheist; a real atheist would never jump to conclusions like this, they would wait until there is ample evidence to make a decision. A lack of understanding for something is not evidence! This could be anything, maybe something scientists have not been able to explain, or it could be god.

My point is that you don't have enough understanding this situation to come to any rational conclusion! I will be the first to say I do not know what this is; I do not know if it is supernatural or not and I wont pretend to. That is what a real atheist would do, they believe only what they have evidence for. If there was evidence to support the supernatural, or a god, and atheist would be the first to admit it! ONLY BELIEVE WHAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT! DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS!

I might conclude that it's unknown.. There's no such thing as a "real" atheist, everyone has different levels of skepticism. and I know there are plenty of so called "Atheist" who have experienced what I did and just as I, are beginning to doubt that the paranormal or spiritual realm is non-existent when it actually is.

We moved to a different location, and it seems like the same spirit followed us all the way over here, because we still experience strange things. For example, my wife has felt a being pulling her legs while half a sleep, we have also had the kitchen table shake as I drew a cross to place it behind our child's bed and more!.. Even if you haven't seen it to, if it is real, you can't say "this is just scientific or "unknown", we got to admit it's spiritual.

**Loki** · 08-31-2013, 07:43 AM

You can't "leave atheism". It's not a church or an organisation. But you can start believing, I guess.

**~~Petros Houhoulis~~** · 08-31-2013, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteruthenian

An atheist cannot be a good nationalist, that's why atheism is bad.

It's true that we value the truth above ethnicity, but in our case Greece has been the cradle of Atheism in the western world too, so I can be proud of my millenarian Greek atheist heritage...

...Meanwhile we are surrounded by idiots of all sorts of creeds. We have plenty of Muslims around whose lifestyle and mentality makes us look almost superhuman. Just find a dialogue between me and Drawing-Live to understand the concept:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...special-forces

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...nvert-to-Islam

I think that my posts in the last 2-3 pages near the end of these threads are the reason Drawing-Live has all but ceased to post around the apricity...

You can find similar blows by myself all around the Turkish section, even one in the Armenian section... Before that I was sabotaging the Turko-Hungarian friendship in the Hungarian section (many years ago really...)

**~~Petros Houhoulis~~** · 08-31-2013, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by orangepulp

Why mock? What you believe is not logical. Whole cosmos created by random chance is like expecting an airplane to be created instanatly without an engineer. At least I believe in a Creator even though not seen, just because you can't see something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can not see your intelligence but does it not exist!

The whole cosmos is created randomly. This is why habitable planets are so rare... The gods' invisible hand is just like the markets' invisible hand. It DOES NOT EXIST...

**~~Petros Houhoulis~~** · 08-31-2013, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Blackout

Is 'Sugar' a drug?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction

Sugar addiction[dubious – discuss] is the term for the relationship between sugar and the various aspects of food addiction including: "bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization". Some scientists assert that consumption of sweets or sugar could[weasel words] have a heroin addiction like effect.[1][non-primary source needed]

http://www.theguardian.com/education...too-much-sugar

Students: just say no to sugar
Forget illegal drugs, students are overdosing on sugar. Little do they know that binging on sweet food is a serious form of substance abuse.

http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition...fied-as-a-drug

Sugar to Get Classified as a Drug?
You want a large soda? I’m gonna need to see some ID first.

http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol1n1/sugar.xml

“If sugar were to be put on the market for the first time today, it would probably be difficult to get it past the FDA.” Kathleen DesMaisons Potatoes not Prozac
Sugar is traditionally classified as a food “used to improve the palatability of many foods” (ISMA, 2005). As such, it is the “cheapest instant source of energy” (ISMA, 2005) containing no nutritional value. Recent research, however, has proven that “under select dietary circumstances, sugar can have effects similar to a drug of abuse”(Rada, Avena & Hoebel, 2005). There are other health risks as well: as Hunt (1999, p. 18) argues, “The average American consumes his weight in sugar every year (152 pounds),” leading to complications such as cavities, mood swings, and weight gain, or to more serious complications such as diabetes. 1 As a result, it is increasingly difficult to ignore the powerful negative affects sugar may have on the physiology and psychology of consumers. In this paper, I will argue that sugar in fact has many drug-like properties that need to be taken into consideration when classifying this substance purely as a food in order to understand the benefits and dangers of sugar to our minds and bodies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:
To review research that tests the validity of the analogy between addictive drugs, like cocaine, and hyperpalatable foods, notably those high in added sugar (i.e., sucrose).
RECENT FINDINGS:
Available evidence in humans shows that sugar and sweetness can induce reward and craving that are comparable in magnitude to those induced by addictive drugs. Although this evidence is limited by the inherent difficulty of comparing different types of rewards and psychological experiences in humans, it is nevertheless supported by recent experimental research on sugar and sweet reward in laboratory rats. Overall, this research has revealed that sugar and sweet reward can not only substitute to addictive drugs, like cocaine, but can even be more rewarding and attractive. At the neurobiological level, the neural substrates of sugar and sweet reward appear to be more robust than those of cocaine (i.e., more resistant to functional failures), possibly reflecting past selective evolutionary pressures for seeking and taking foods high in sugar and calories.
SUMMARY:
The biological robustness in the neural substrates of sugar and sweet reward may be sufficient to explain why many people can have difficultly to control the consumption of foods high in sugar when continuously exposed to them.

**~~Petros Houhoulis~~** · 08-31-2013, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Pontios

That's what I see in most people who say they are Atheists. They all have conclusions rather than a stable and common belief amongst them...

From what I see, some people just don't understand what Atheist actually means. They think just because they don't know if there is a God or not, they immediately are Atheists rather than admitting they are not sure.

We are sure that you are an idiot much like that clown, Mussolini...

**~~Petros Houhoulis~~** · 08-31-2013, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by SilverKnight

I might conclude that it's unknown.. There's no such thing as a "real" atheist, everyone has different levels of skepticism. and I know there are plenty of so called "Atheist" who have experienced what I did and just as I, are beginning to doubt that the paranormal or spiritual realm is non-existent when it actually is.

We moved to a different location, and it seems like the same spirit followed us all the way over here, because we still experience strange things. For example, my wife has felt a being pulling her legs while half a sleep, we have also had the kitchen table shake as I drew a cross to place it behind our child's bed and more!.. Even if you haven't seen it to, if it is real, you can't say "this is just scientific or "unknown", we got to admit it's spiritual.

Yes, we have experienced what you did and concluded that the human brain as all things randomly created is imperfect and as such it is not an optimal machine. It has its' own failures. This can be more easily understood if you ever tried to follow any optical illusions or other similar illusions:

What you consider as "spiritual" are games played by your own mind upon yourselves...

**Hàkon** · 08-31-2013, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Hàkon

The fact that the conclusions of researchers do not necessarily make individuals less convinced of the opposite view is nothing new; you disregard that feelings, thoughts, sensations and events in the environment not only are experienced as they are, but are also attributed a meaning based on the frames of reference (values, subconscious beliefs etc.) that the individual has.

(This is basic cognitive psychology. Additionally, keep in mind that you were religious and raised in such a home.)

Different types of thought errors (cognitive bias) tend to bring individuals to rather note things that are in line with what they are convinced to have experienced and/ or know, while conflicting information (explanations) does not influence the interpretation processes.

The supernatural experience is the result of a process of interpretation that is often characterized by an inner conviction.

Spoiler!

That is to say; I believe you trust what you think you experienced, but that is not reality.

Originally Posted by Hàkon

Keeping everything you have written in mind; this is my rather general answer, for (personal) details are not very relevant.

First, it isn't very plausible to suppose that you are not colored by your upbringing and previous experiences; whilst scientists, trained in objective thinking, cannot be truly objective and thus avoid cognitive bias.

We are a “Connect the Dots” species; we are not critical thinkers by nature, we are hardwired to believe; succumbing to it is natural, and to disregard and forget conflicting facts is how we work.

So, however satisfactory they might seem, your words and idea of how it and what happened is not sufficient and thus not believable; in order to exclude it being something neurological and purely natural, you have to prove it is in fact not neurological and purely natural.

To clarify, when establishing valid facts, one does not initially adopt the stance that what is stated is true; the postulate is false until proven to be valid, by withstanding inquiry.

That is where your claim, as well as the “evidence” pointing to the existence of paranormal entities, inter alia, is lacking.

Now, the lack of proof against your claim, which is mainly argued to be due to the “technical inability” to denounce it, does not endorse the existence of anything paranormal; it is far more rational to assume that what you experienced is the workings of your brain along with the natural occurrences of living in a fairly old building.

Naturally, if the claim one day is proven to be fact and thus becomes generally accepted, I too will embrace it; that is the open-mindedness of science.

Spoiler!

Never got a proper response; you were never an atheist.

**SilverKnight** · 08-31-2013, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Petros Houhoulis

Yes, we have experienced what you did and concluded that the human brain as all things randomly created is imperfect and as such it is not an optimal machine. It has its' own failures. This can be more easily understood if you ever tried to follow any optical illusions or other similar illusions:

What you consider as "spiritual" are games played by your own mind upon yourselves...

You said it right, randomly, but when patterns occur on and on again, random is far out of the equation and reality sets in.

For instance explain this, the camera isn't human, is not as imperfect:

" left at the top of the stairs while we went out for a cigarette, knocks can be heard. "